For the past couple of years, we have sold out both the spring and fall sessions of Attorney Tristan Pettit’s AASEW Landlord Tenant Law Boot Camp.

It looks like we are on track to do the same for the upcoming February 18th, 2017 Boot Camp.

Last fall I waited too long to sign up my new staff members and could not get them in. I signed up three staff people very early for this one. 😉

You may ask ‘Why would Tim pay $537 plus wages to send three people to Boot Camp when he knows the laws so well?’

The answer is easy: One small mistake or missed opportunity will cost us far more than this. It is important that my folks know the law as WI landlord Tenant Law is not always what a reasonable person would assume it to be. And this is ever evolving, with both new laws, new interpretations by courts and new tricks by tenant advocates*. This is not the first time we’ve sent staff either.

This course is presented by Attorney Tristan Pettit. Tristan’s law practice focuses on landlord-tenant law, he is a current board member of the Apartment Association as well as former president, and drumroll please, he writes all the standard landlord tenant forms for Wisconsin Legal Blank.

If you want to go, now that my seats are secure ;-), you can sign up online or call Joy at the Association 414-276-7378 and reserve a spot.

http://www.landlordbootcamp2017.com

* Most “tenant advocates” only advocate for tenants that break the rules. This ultimately costs the rest of the good tenants more in increased rents and decreased service or more noise and disruption… but this is another story for another day.

Rental Housing is the largest small business in Milwaukee with over $7 billion invested in Milwaukee. (MPROP assessor records October 2015) Rental properties account for well over a half billion dollars a year of economic impact, starting with $190 million in property taxes, sewer and water charges, maintenance, insurance and everything else that goes into running rental housing. The Census Bureau found the yearly median operating costs per unit for multifamily rental properties vary between $3,600 per unit for small properties and $5,170 per unit for large properties, adjusted to 2016 dollars. These numbers exclude interest and mortgage servicing.

Providing rental housing in older, poorer neighborhoods is difficult, challenging and unappreciated work. Many have failed, some are opportunists or worse, but the majority were simply overwhelmed financially and mentally by the task at hand.

Owners are impacted by the financial and social problems of their tenants, the high costs of maintenance and lack of capital to address those problems. It is not the owner’s lifestyle that contributes to insect infestations or broken windows, yet it is the owner and not the occupant that is accountable both financially and recently in the media.

Not only do private owners suffer these burdens. One only needs to look at the long history of failure among Milwaukee’s nonprofit housing providers. (see excerpt below) These groups had every advantage over the small private investor. They had significant financial resources, typically through Block Grant and other government funding and grants; they had well-paid and well-educated staff; they often obtaining properties without costs, and they had access to the best tenants on Rent Assistance. Nearly all of Milwaukee’s nonprofit housing providers failed financially.

These groups had every advantage over the small private investor. They had significant financial resources, typically through Block Grant and other government funding and grants; they had well-paid and well-educated staff; they often obtaining properties without costs, and they had access to the best tenants on Rent Assistance. Nearly all of Milwaukee’s nonprofit housing providers failed financially.

Or one could look at the Milwaukee’s Housing Authority budget to see the costs they incur housing low-income Milwaukeeans. Here too is an organization that gets Rent Assistance tenants, tenants who risk losing their housing subsidy if they fail to comply with the rules or pay their rent. HACM does not rent to the populations with bad histories, leaving the segment most in need of housing to the private sector.

Milwaukee should strive to encourage a successful private rental housing market in this once great city, but since the mid-1980s’ the city adopted a culture of hatred towards private rental owners. That has not produced positive results, but instead, discourages the right people from participating.

If Milwaukee rental housing became more sustainable, where people willing to invest their time and money were to make reasonable profits, it would be harder for the few charlatans to exist because of increased competition for available properties. An added benefit is more interest in investing in Milwaukee’s rental housing will result in an increase in values and therefore an increase in the tax base.

Alderman Witkowski, who is the co-author of this proposal, created a Local Business Action Team to help small business succeed. Rental housing is the largest segment of small business within the city and one that may have the greatest impact on the well-being of the city. With our half billion dollars a year of economic impact, a similar effort should be undertaken towards making private rental housing more successful.

Let’s look at the recent Journal Sentinel series on landlords.

This investigative reporting – using easily available public records – showed that the individual owners behind LLCs could be revealed and that other properties owned by these individuals or different LLCs could also be exposed. Changes in the LLC laws are not necessary, contrary to the assertions of Aldermen Murphy and Witkowski that bad landlords are operating in secret. The City Attorney’s office has recently been successful in having a receiver appointed for the various ownership entities used by inner city landlord

Within existing laws, the city could have caused most of the featured landlords out of business, through docketing and enforcing code enforcement fines, and foreclosing f tax delinquencies. For whatever reason the city allowed these owners to continue unabated.

Perhaps most troubling is the relentless attack on James H. Herrick, who works for Baird, that went as far as the Mayor calling for the guy to be fired. He is not a member of the Association nor known to us.

The Journal reports that inspectors show up and find basement doors illegally padlocked. In the article, the owner’s manager states he did this in an attempt to keep drug dealers from entering the property.

There is no argument that inoperable fire doors are an unreasonable risk to occupants. Clearly, this was a novice mistake made by someone who did not understand fire codes.

The correct response by DNS would be for the inspector to explain the problem and demand the owner’s rep immediately remove the padlocks. If the owner did not comply, the Department of Neighborhood Services has an essential services program where the city can contract a repair and then bill the owner.

Instead, the inspection supervisor chose to placard the building and force 50 families out onto the street. Closing a 50 unit building would not have been the DNS response had the property been located on the Eastside, Bayview or the Southwest side. In these more affluent neighborhood they would have compelled a solution that kept the tenants safely in their homes.

But this building is in a poor, minority neighborhood. The city’s response was harsh as it typically is in these neighborhoods. The DNS employees who acted out of spite towards the owners and a disregard of the tenant population, instead of attempting to protect the homes of 50 low income, primarily minority tenants, should lose their jobs.

The 50 unit building remained closed for a couple of months. It is no surprise that the building ended in foreclosure and sold at a distressed price due to this.

The owner’ use of single property LLCs, in this case, were an advantage to the city. Because the owner had his properties in separate LLCs, this allowed only this one to be foreclosed upon, instead of all 13.

Similarly, what did the city gain by the public attack on NBA basketball star Devin Harris? While it may have been expedient in causing the payment of some fines and taxes, overall it sent a clear warning to others with capital “Do not invest in Milwaukee. If you fail, you will be ridiculed and perhaps lose your career.” Similar results could have been obtained with a private conversation with Harris, thereby not discouraging outside investment.￼
￼

West End joins a list of other nonprofit housing organizations that have failed in the last 10 years, including Walker’s Point Development Corp., East Side Housing Action Coalition and Community Development, and the Westside Conservation Corp.

Below is this month’s President’s Column from the Apartment Association newsletter. While Joe Dahl states his reason for stepping down modestly as “to pursue other opportunities” the truth is Joe was accepted into the Princeton PhD program where he plans to expand on what he learned as an urban landlord to study housing related issues. It will be refreshing to see this type of study being done without the typical ‘all landlords are bad and homeownership is the only answer’ bias that so much of this work is founded upon.

Joe’s life story so far is inspirational – growing up on the near Southside and through pure self determination, moving beyond those roots, getting an MBA and now being accepted into a doctoral program at one of the top colleges in the nation. I told him I want a cameo appearance when his story hits the big screen. Joe credits his involvement with rental housing as an important part of his life and opportunities.

Joe was the most charismatic leaders of the Association in the 26 years I have been involved with the group. In that sense he will be missed.

However the Association will continue to thrive. The incoming president, Jerry Carne, is long time landlord and a person who values action as well as understands fiscal responsibility. He will do well in this position, even if he may not look as good in a fedora as Joe. 😉

We have many other outstanding board members who continue to work hard behind the scenes. Shari Engstrom, from Sid Grinker Restoration, has really stepped up the quality of our special events like the Trade Show, summer party and holiday parties. Tristan Pettit remains intimately involved in the Association. Tristan and AASEW Attorney Heiner Giese work diligently to make sure laws are as favorable to our industry as possible. Ihsan Atta is one of the sharpest and most personable people I’ve met. Carrie Maas has many connections within the industry and community. Ralph Hibbard, from Orkin, probably has rental housing in his DNA as his family has been in real estate even before me. Few of you probably see this, but Ralph is the real workhorse for the Association behind the scenes. For better or for worse I tend to stick around for the AASEW, adding some continuity. We have three newer board members who will find their stride and do well for us: Tim Dertz, Ronald Hegwood, and Brian Bartsch.

While on a personal level I will miss Joe, from an Association’s standpoint “The Future’s So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades” Timbuk 3

Two years ago I took the reins of the AASEW with the vision that we could grow membership and improve the industry through collective action. Supported by an outstanding board of directors I am proud of the progress we have made on both fronts. Leading the organization has been a tremendous honor and it is with a heavy heart that I must step down to pursue other opportunities. Effective June 1, 2015 board member, Jerry Carne, will become interim President.

Our organization is full of entrepreneurs, large and small, who have built businesses and improved their communities through responsible investment. As an industry with low barriers to entry it remains one of the few spaces in the economy where hard work, tenacity, and perseverance can overcome the barriers of lack of capital and connections. Ensuring this pathway to prosperity exists for others is the responsibility of all who have benefited from it.

Yet our accomplishments have not been without failure. For every landlord who responds to our call to action and joins, there are 5 who do not. Foolishly believing they can go it alone, or worse, content to free load off the structural changes we effect, this segment represents our greatest obstacle and opportunity. Their short-sightedness emboldens aggressive municipalities and inhibits are ability to resist them. Engaging them as members will be the difference between our success and failure.

Upon assuming the Presidency I promised to turn the AASEW around or run us into the ground. Maintaining the status quo was not an option and I sincerely hope our leadership carries this philosophy into the future. As an organization we must fight complacency and stagnation as aggressively as a bad laws, both are costly.

Leading the AASEW has made me a better landlord and business person and professional. It’s been integral to my success and has helped me forge a new path forward. It has been my honor to serve our members and work side by side with a group much more talented and intelligent than myself to make Wisconsin a better place to own and manage real estate.

In the past few months I have had nearly a dozen of conversations with other rental property owners that have turned to some variation on the question ‘What do you attribute your success to’ My story is simply not that interesting.

It is a story of working hard at generally boring things. Yes, I have lived well off landlording for three decades. Yes, I now have time to walk thirty-five to fifty miles a week, often barefoot on wet sand. Yes, I have the time to travel around the country to help my wife with her business. I still work remotely when I am away form the office, just not the insane hours I did as a kid.

But the truth is mine is just not an exciting story. Seems most people want to know how to be independent and wealthy by July. They do not want to hear about the multi year, multi decade journey it took me.

I used to say ‘Everyone says they want to be me, but none of them are willing to do what it takes.’ That was too egotistical sounding and I only used it in private conversations with folks who pushed me to tell them “the secret.”

A couple of years ago I read a quote by Hugh MacLoed which I like better. In fact I liked it so much I bought a numbered MacLoed print for my office wall. At least it was there before my staff redecorated the offices … I haven’t checked in a while.

“What people say they want and what they’re willing to work their ass off to get are two different things. ” – Hugh MacLeod

I simply focused on one thing most of my life, pursued boring fundamentals with dogged persistence and took the time to learn the laws that affect my business. For me this worked well.

Focus. Today the buzzword in business start ups is ‘pivot’ and the mantra is ‘pivot early and pivot often’, meaning a complete change in direction when things get tough. Tough seems to mean in their terms that you aren’t ready for a one hundred million dollar IPO and it’s already been six months so it must be time to do something else. I wonder how many of these young entrepreneurs give up just before success.

As I criticize the pivot I must admit I too had a major pivot in the very early days. When I was in my early twenties I wanted to own a state of the art contract computerized manufacturing (CNC/CAD) company. My background was in manufacturing and CNC machining. I loved the challenges and logic of making things. I started buying rentals with the goal of using them to finance the machine shop. That dream hit a bump in the road. My potential business partner had some legal problems that I was unaware of until we went for financing. I stayed with the rentals and grew that business. So on some level this was a pivot, but not in the sense it is used today.

Instead of the pivot I went for incremental improvement. For thirty years I did little else for income that did not involve rental housing. Every day I try to do this better than we did yesterday.

It was only in the last few years that I diversified a bit from Milwaukee rentals by helping my wife with her business and began exploring Southeastern Florida real estate as well as some angel funding stuff. You will not create the next PayPal, eBay or Google through incremental improvement, but it is a path to a decent sustainable lifestyle. I see it as a fault of mine that my dreams were not larger, but I am fairly content where I’m at.

Persistence is still being there when everyone else gets tired and goes home. Persistence is when you still show up and giving it your all even though you’ve had three bad months in a row. Persistence is eating Kraft instant macaroni four times a week for months on end to finance a rehab. Persistence is leaving for work at 6 AM and not arriving home until 10 PM every day for weeks on end. (See my follow up post on ten things I should have done differently) Persistence is staying the course when everyone around you says it is a no win game.

Despite how it is spelled, there is no fun in the fundamentals. Once the adrenaline rush of buying a building wears off so does the enthusiasm of many. Rental real estate is a tough business. When my son said he wanted to follow me into the business I told him to find something better to do with his life. And landlording is a business, not an investment, at least not at the levels we are dealing with.

Bookkeeping, taxes, employees/HR, purchasing, collections, filling vacancies, evictions, customer service and dealing with bureaucrats are all part of the unfun fundamentals.

To succeed at landlording you have to focus on these fundamentals and pay attention to a myriad of laws and rules that affect us. I’m pretty sure that must every business out there is similar in this regard.

I’ve done all of those, others who are successful today have shared similar stories. Then there are those who seemed to hold such promise at the beginning but suddenly were washed out. Most of them looked for a shortcut, ignoring the fundamentals and then gave up when it got a wee bit hard.

John Shoemaker is one of the nation’s leading attorneys in the defense of the rights of rental property owners , and subsequently the rights of low income residents who live in rented housing. He specifically addresses Milwaukee and its HUD Grant application in this letter. I share this with letter with his permission. It’s long, but if you intend to be part of low to moderate income housing you need to read this. — Tim Ballering

October 22, 2014

Tim:

I am following up to my recent emails to you about the legal challenges private low-income housing providers have made in Federal District Court in the Twin Cities since 2004.

We are in our 10th year of federal litigation against Twin Cities’ municipalities, with six federal (Minnesota District) lawsuits still active (four lawsuits vs. the City of St. Paul – 14 total housing providers as plaintiffs: the three Gallagher vs. Magner consolidated cases that were before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011-12, now awaiting trial; and the McRath vs. St. Paul case in discovery; and two lawsuits recently filed vs. Minneapolis – two providers as plaintiffs: Folger vs Minneapolis, Court File 13-cv-3489; and Ellis vs. HUD and Minneapolis, Court File 14-cv-3045). Recently, the federal court allowed housing provider Folger’s Fair Housing disparate impact lawsuit against Minneapolis to move past a motion to dismiss and that case is now in discovery. There are approximately 200 properties directly involved in these matters but the outcome of the litigation will impact hundreds if not thousands of other low-income properties.

Outside of these federal lawsuits, we have rarely seen much organized opposition from private real estate investors in response to oppressive public sector housing policies and actions. This is so even though the local government policies negatively impact the return on investment and incentives to continue providing affordable housing offered by the private market, and negatively impact the availability of such housing at rental rates that are affordable at under 30% of area median income.

Municipalities benefit from this lack of organization among private low-income housing market participants by focusing police power and public resources against each investor one at a time, picking off good, honest, hard-working Americans through ever-increasingly high regulatory standards, confiscatory fees, assessments and fines, targeted enforcement actions, other regulatory burdens and outright illegal policies and conduct. Low-income citizens who seek safe, decent and sanitary housing in the inner-city communities from private providers, suffer as the public sector actions cause displacement and keep housing units offline for longer periods of time than would be the case if the private market was allowed to operate within traditional legal boundaries, without oppressive local government regulation and illegal policies and conduct.

Challenging these illegal public policies and actions through litigation is not the best option in many situations as the heavy burden of court costs, attorney’s fees and expert fees is barrier to most owners of low-income housing pursuing redress of injuries against local governments. Owners usually experience an extended period of forced reduction in rental income and related dramatic increase in expenses directly from oppressive, targeted government actions against them. In a marketplace where profit margins are thin, local governments tend to drain private investor’s resources through heavy every day regulatory costs, so by the time litigation may be an option to preserve the portfolio and lifetime of investment, financial resources to carry the battle to court may be few. Many owners have drained available financial resources by the time they decide they need assistance in their fight. Many owners simply choose to walk away from their investment as they have no remaining resources to fight for extended periods and are unable to retain legal counsel to preserve their rights and fight for change. Nevertheless, in certain instances, litigation would be the best option where fighting back to save a rental portfolio is deemed necessary, especially if damages are significant or the threat of losing everything is very real and present.

What if private housing providers organized on a national, regional and/or state level and pooled their resources and joined the cause? That might move the process of change forward, albeit slowly over an extended period of time. One strategy might be to pool resources of time, talent and money for not just litigation but also lobbying at the local and state levels to publicly voice opposition to harmful public housing and related policies and advocate for reasoned approaches that preserve property rights, liberties, affordable housing and investments. We might consider creating a national or regional group of interested and experienced leaders and counsel to roundtable on these issues, including litigation strategies and to examine possible formation of citizen-investor groups to focus on selected municipalities where the fight is particularly advantageous to our cause.

There are other options for real estate investors in the low-income housing market outside the Court process and normal city council hearing process to address these legitimate concerns.

Private housing providers are eligible to file Complaints with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). We have filed three Housing Discrimination Complaints for a total of 16 housing providers and other interested parties with HUD since November 2012. HUD has not been cooperative and has taken every opportunity to delay having to accept complaints and to investigate complaints by private housing providers against local municipalities. This obstructive behavior by HUD arises I believe from the political animal HUD truly is, especially where the local government leaders are of the same political party as those in the Administration in Washington.

We have started the process this year of bringing HUD into the federal litigation as an interested party under the theory that federal law requires HUD to monitor and take actions to curtail violations of federal law by local governments and their officials. HUD has a federal statutory duty to honestly monitor and hold accountable local governments that receive federal grant funds where complaints are presented to HUD of wrongdoing by those jurisdictions. Courts have held HUD liable for damages and injunctive relief where HUD has continued to fund local entities with knowledge of discriminatory policies at the local level. Minneapolis and HUD have notified us that they will be seeking dismissal of the most recent lawsuit in January 2015.

While it might not be a cure-all, I believe the private housing providers must speak up at the local government level during the federal grant funding process.

Milwaukee is a yearly recipient of federal grants, including a number of grants administered by HUD. Milwaukee is recognized as an “Entitlement Jurisdiction” for federal HUD funding purposes which means the City applies to and obtains the grants from HUD directly, versus through the State of Wisconsin. One major grant program is called the Community Development Block Grant program, “CDBG”. As a federal grant funded Entitlement Jurisdiction, Milwaukee must conduct an “analysis of impediments to fair housing choice” (“AI”), every 3-5 years, although HUD strongly recommends each City receiving CDBG funds review the “AI” every year. The official definition of an “AI” is found in HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide (“FHPG”), see attached and see http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/images/fhpg.pdf

The “AI” is a review of impediments to fair housing choice in the public and private sector. The AI involves:

A comprehensive review of a State or Entitlement jurisdiction’s laws, regulations, and administrative policies, procedures, and practices

An assessment of how those laws, etc. affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing

An assessment of conditions, both public and private, affecting fair housing choice for all protected classes

An assessment of the availability of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes.

Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin that restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choice

Any actions, omissions, or decisions that have this effect. (Note: This means, “Disparate impact”).

Policies, practices, or procedures that appear neutral on their face, but which operate to deny or adversely affect the availability of housing to persons because of race, ethnicity, disability, and families with children may constitute such impediments. (“Disparate impact”).

Have the effect of restricting housing opportunities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. (“Disparate impact”).

HUD’s FHPG provides that Milwaukee must analyze the following subjects of City laws, policies and actions on how those laws, policies or actions affect housing choice for low income and protected class members:

4.3 AI SUBJECT AREAS

Public Sector

Local building, occupancy, and health and safety codes that may affect the availability of housing for minorities, families with children, and persons with disabilities, such information should be available through a review of local laws and ordinances relating to these subjects.

Public Sector – other actions –

Building codes

Local zoning laws and policies (e.g., minimum lot size requirements, dispersal requirements for housing facilities for persons with disabilities in single-family zones, and restrictions on the number of unrelated persons in dwellings based on size of unit or number of bedrooms)

Federal grant funding to Milwaukee, that includes CDBG, is processed under a Consolidated Planning process whereby: (1) every 5 years, a Consolidated Plan is prepared by Milwaukee with citizen participation and submitted to HUD showing the five year plan; and (2) every year during the five year period the City must provide HUD with an Action Plan and a CAPER (Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report). By providing detailed financial and beneficiary information in the CAPER, the City explains to HUD and the community how the City is carrying out its housing and community development strategies, projects, and activities.

Milwaukee is now near the end in the process of preparing its five year Consolidated Plan submission for 2015-2019 to HUD. Part of the required Con Plan process is Citizen Participation [footnote 1], where the City must hold hearings and provide access to Plan information and documentation for community members to review and submit oral and written comments about the City’s plans for using federal grant funds during the next 5 year period. See http://city.milwaukee.gov/NeighborhoodStabilizationProgramNSP/NSP-Meetings—Con-Plan.htm#.VEhAXBYzISg

Also note that Milwaukee is planning on acquiring more vacant homes including foreclosure properties.

We have discovered here in the Twin Cities, that Cities acquire claimed distressed properties (including those that the City acquired after targeting them) and then hold those properties off market for 3-5 or more years – until they have the money to develop them from federal or other sources and so as they claim, stabilize the real estate market in the inner city. Through use of a land bank concept, the properties are off-limits to the private market much like the “First Look” program whereby bank REO properties in the inner-city are offered first off-the-books to local governments and NGOs, thereby prohibiting private market acquisition. We learned of this policies through the Cities’ applications for federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program grants (NSP) funding from 2009 and thereafter.

Here in the Twin Cities, we have local government policies that interfere with the normal “ups and downs” of the real estate market and exacerbate the affordable housing crisis. These local government policies prohibit transfer of ownership of vacant homes without local government approval and require massive investment into claimed distressed homes before re-occupancy. These policies have directly led to an extended period of blight in the inner-city as the normal 300-400 annual vacant homes in St. Paul has continued for eight years at 4-8 times those levels, including above 2,000-2,400 for a number of years. These local government policies extend the high number of vacant homes for longer periods thereby allowing local governments to control the disposition, ownership and use of these homes.

The continuation of these policies year after year has negatively impacted property (sales) values of homes including older rental properties; however, the tax assessments are continuing at high valuation levels.

Combined City efforts of heavy, targeted code enforcement and high rates of demolitions with associated demo assessments, along with the high number of foreclosures and vacant homes, has led to a golden opportunity for local governments to acquire these claimed distressed properties. City acquisition of large numbers of claimed distressed properties and the policy of holding those properties offline from sale and redevelopment, along with the lack of production of significant numbers of new affordable rental units for those at under 30% AMI, has exacerbated the unavailability of affordable older housing to meet the high demand for rental housing.

Here, local government documents demonstrate that City officials are seeking to keep private investors from acquiring distressed properties; are placing deed restrictions on renovated homes prohibiting rentals; city policies are de-converting multi-unit rental buildings and homes to smaller number of allowed units – duplexes de-converted to single family homes, and 4-plexes to duplexes. There are thousands of vacant homes that could be quickly and economically repaired to reasonable housing standards and let out to those in need of rental housing. Instead local governments are requiring massive renovation investment to City-approved standards (including Green Energy) in order to re-occupy these homes.

Federal, state and foundational funding is insufficient to renovate the inner-city older housing stock yet the City will allocate federal funds to each project at levels many times above the amount the private market would or could justify. Government funding for the expensive renovation and subsidies for new owners, is actually wasted while claiming to develop and preserve affordable housing. A small portion of the overall Millions in grant and other government funds currently being committed yearly to the government and NGO renovation projects producing a small number of housing units, could be provided to the private market for repairs and commonsense renovations.

With the high demand for affordable rental housing units by poor, minority families, a reasoned argument can be made that available government funds should be spent first on policies that ensure there are enough affordable housing units for most of those in need with ability to pay. The private market has the time-tested solutions for issues related to timely production of safe, decent and sanitary rental units including renovated units to reasonable standards. Instead, local government policies are focused on prohibiting the private market solutions and producing expensive renovations to a limited number of homes in the large pool of vacant homes. Government policies like this in the short term only produce minimal numbers of available units and most of them for home-owners only. It also keeps thousands of low-income and minority families on the waiting lists for affordable housing.

Again, thank you for your interest in our fight for justice here in the Twin Cities.

I look forward to discussing these issues with you.

John

John R. Shoemaker

Attorney at Law

SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, PLLC

Highland Bank Building

5270 West 84th Street

Suite 410

Bloomington, MN 55437

(952) 224-4610

P.S: In July 2013, HUD proposed a federal regulatory rule called, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” that has long been a federal funding requirement of all Entitlement Jurisdictions, including Milwaukee. Section 808(e)(5) of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3608(e)(5)) requires that HUD programs and activities be administered [including by grant recipients) in a manner affirmatively to further the policies of the Fair Housing Act.

The new AFFH rule replaces the “AI” process with a Fair Housing Assessment.

Disclaimer

I am "just a landlord," NOT an attorney or accountant. If you need legal advice, tax advice or have appendicitis, don’t rely on something you read on the internet and do it yourself. Rather, hire a competent professional.